Is faith realistic?

[begbert2]

@Jesticulator

Perhaps it was an excellent question but you didn’t answer it.

The question was not “How is the acceptability of evidence determined?”
The question was: “So who determines which ‘quality of evidence’ is appropriate or acceptable?” and it was in reference to this quote:

There was a claim about “the quality of evidence” but no explanation of how the “quality” is determined. And, since the post referred to “the people who tell me …”, I asked for *who * determines which ‘quality of evidence’ is appropriate or acceptable.

You have not answered the question that I asked. Please try again.

Thanks.

Who determines which quality of evidence it acceptable? The person who’s accepting it, of course. Not that the “who” is that significant a matter, since really, everyone assesses evidence at one time or another. A more germaine question is, ‘What would be a good way for a person to assess the quality of evidence, if they were interested discerning in the truth?’, which more closely approximates what I answered.

Of course, I know a lot of people who clearly have less interest in discerning the truth than in propping up their own feel-good preconceptions, and they of course have a different method of assessing their evidence. It’s not a good one for discerning truth, of course, but that’s not its intent.

[kanicbird]

@RT

But then surely you’re not truly worshipping Satan? You’re worshipping something you think is Satan, but isn’t. It’s like worshipping an orange under the mistaken impression it’s Satan; he might get power from the fact you’re not worshipping God, but you’re still not actually worshipping of accepting the true person.

I would agree with that, except a nitpic that worshiping Satan does not give him power as most would think of the word, but could open up a foothold for Satan to posses oneself.

I think you need to know of the deception in order to truly accept it. If you don’t know of it, then you’ve only accepted the deception; seeing the real Satan is needed in order to truly accept him. At least, under my definition of acceptance.

OK I’ll agree with it

Therefore, all people who truly accept Satan must either have been Christians at some point (and so no non-Christians truly accept Satan, though they may accept facsimilies); unless they’ve specifically been gifted with the Holy Spirit.

Yes I’d agree with this in general.

Not really. I’m not familiar with what you mean by the Outer Darkness… do you mean nonexistence? I’m not certain i’d call that worse than Hell.

No one really knows, but it is assumed to be worse then Hell. If you are interested it is sometimes though of eternal torment with no contact with another entity forever, as opposed to Hell where one will be accompanied by fellow souls, demons and fallen angels. Basically cast outside the universe where no light exists. Perhaps one will be assigned a couple of demons to actual perform the torment, that you may or may not be able to perceive.

Actually, it isn’t. If God (or the Holy Spirit itself) was inclined to give of itself in that manner in order to comply with free will, then logically everyone would be with the Holy Spirit. That they aren’t shows it’s not a basic matter of free will, and so the gift is being given for alternate reasons.

God sets limits on what we, and for that matter Satan, can do. These limits can be seen in Job for one. God allows us to make choices, yes God does know what choices we will make (again free will vs. predestination - I think you accepted that these two can coexist in previous threads). The gifts of the Holy Spirit allow us to hear God in which paths He wants us to take, and also opens paths that we wouldn’t be able to travel or see.

[Jesticulator]

@begbert2

Who determines which quality of evidence it acceptable? The person who’s accepting it, of course. Not that the “who” is that significant a matter, since really, everyone assesses evidence at one time or another.

Okay. So, when you said this:

In short terms, that means that if 10 sources tell you that Australia exists, and 1 source tells you it doesn’t, the descrediting source should still be given enough weight to be looked into, to look for more evidence confirming or denying.

Of course, about 99.999% of the relevent evidence supports that there’s an austrailia. (More than that if you’re actually in Austrailia.)

you were talking about “sources” that just appeared on their own, without human intervention, right? And, you are equating these “non-personal” sources with “evidence”, right?
Okay.

A more germaine question is, ‘What would be a good way for a person to assess the quality of evidence, if they were interested discerning in the truth?’, which more closely approximates what I answered.

Is it a question about Germaine Greer, because she was born in Australia? Or is it germane to the discussion?

Anyway, you think, then, that you answerd the gist of my question with this:

evidence is acceptable to the degree that it is supported by other evidence, including historical tendencies, and damaged in significantly higher proportion by evidence that contradicts it unless/until that evidence is discredited by other evidence. (Also note that internal contradictions and failures to deliver on proimises are very strong evidence against.)

Interesting. Please provide evidence that your statements are correct.

Of course, I know a lot of people who clearly have less interest in discerning the truth than in propping up their own feel-good preconceptions, and they of course have a different method of assessing their evidence.

Your method, though, does not involve any attempt to feel good, right? You unemotionally examine all evidence, first to determine whether it is relevant and then to determine whether it is acceptable.
How do you feel about that?

[Jesticulator]

@Voyager

So the answer to who decides if evidence is good or not is the scientific consensus.

What does “the scientific consensus” say about your statement? Do scientists use science to determine the *method * of evaluating evidence?

For religion we have a problem, since faith requires that evidence fit into the dogma, not that the dogma be based on evidence.

Why does that mean that “we have a problem”?

Even worse, there is no global consensus on religion the way there is on science.

So? Is there global consensus on politics, philosophy, and the arts? Are you suggesting that there should be?

But the claim that theology can discover truths has been pretty well falsified by now.

Falsified? Pretty well? Who did it? What is the global consensus on this issue? Where can I read about it? Or should I just accept your claim as the final truth?

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

@Jesticulator

What do *you * mean by “correlate”?
I think we agree that science and religion are different. But your questions suggest that you think they should be identical, and, if not, then religion is useless.

Is that what you’re saying?

I am saying that in science, there is evidence (although I admit to **Voyager’s ** charge that I oversimplify the status of evidence), and if you don’t have evidence for your theory, then you are, and should be, ignored. Science is evidence-driven, because evidence is by definition an indication that such-and-such a theory is true.

What I’m arguing is two-fold. First, I am arguing that there is no similar indicator in religion–no factor that reliably indicates, in a way that can be replicated by others, that a particular religious doctrine is likely to be true. And the second point I am making is that too many advocates of religion practice special pleading, making ad hoc exemptions for themselves that allow them to believe something is true without being able to present anything that would indicate or tend to show that what they believe is in fact true.

Science isn’t a special type of discipline; it is merely a sophisticated extension of our ordinary practice of using evidence and reason to try to come up with hypotheses to explain the world we live in. Religion isn’t trying to set itself apart from science; it is trying to set itself apart from every other truth-seeking practice exercised by humans. That is an unacceptable case of special pleading.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@kanicbird

I would agree with that, except a nitpic that worshiping Satan does not give him power as most would think of the word, but could open up a foothold for Satan to posses oneself.

Fair dos.

Yes I’d agree with this in general.

That was all my original point was, so, thanks.

No one really knows, but it is assumed to be worse then Hell. If you are interested it is sometimes though of eternal torment with no contact with another entity forever, as opposed to Hell where one will be accompanied by fellow souls, demons and fallen angels. Basically cast outside the universe where no light exists. Perhaps one will be assigned a couple of demons to actual perform the torment, that you may or may not be able to perceive.

Ah. Honestly i’d not heard of the concept before; are there any sites or books you could point me at that I could have a look at? It is an interesting topic. And yes, I think i’d agree that does sound worse than Hell, but then i’m a people person.

God sets limits on what we, and for that matter Satan, can do. These limits can be seen in Job for one. God allows us to make choices, yes God does know what choices we will make (again free will vs. predestination - I think you accepted that these two can coexist in previous threads). The gifts of the Holy Spirit allow us to hear God in which paths He wants us to take, and also opens paths that we wouldn’t be able to travel or see.

I have accepted that, your memory is accurate. The problem as I see it in this case is that by removing those limits in these cases, God’s creating the opportunities. I mean, if free will and the abilities/vision granted by the Holy Spirit were that important to him, surely he’d make them avaliable to us in general all the time? IOW, if he wants us to have those options, we shouldn’t just have them at certain times. He doesn’t want us to have the option of flying any time we wish, so we don’t have wings; there are some options he clearly doesn’t want us to have open, at least permanently. Yet he’s willing to give that option in cases where the people in question will choose to accept Satan, as opposed to times when they won’t. It just seems like he wants that to happen, since he’s actually intervening to create that option at the time it will be abused. If he didn’t want the person in question to accept Satan, he wouldn’t offer it - or at least, he would offer it at another time.

[begbert2]

@Jesticulator

Okay. So, when you said this:you were talking about “sources” that just appeared on their own, without human intervention, right? And, you are equating these “non-personal” sources with “evidence”, right?
Okay.

Sure, I’m talking about rocks and trees and fossils and natural laws like gravity. Of course, I’m also talking about books and videos. And personal testimony. And every other kind of evidence out there. All of it. Where could you have possibly gotten the idea that assessment of evidence was limited to natural evidence?

I’m equating “evidence” with “evidence”. Tricky, I know.

@Jesticulator

Is it a question about Germaine Greer, because she was born in Australia? Or is it germane to the discussion?

Ha, ha.

@Jesticulator

Anyway, you think, then, that you answerd the gist of my question with this:Interesting. Please provide evidence that your statements are correct.

You have a computer, right? It works, right? The method by which it was developed relied utterly on the methods of assessing evidence described by my statements. If your computer exists, then that is evidence for my statements.

@Jesticulator

Your method, though, does not involve any attempt to feel good, right? You unemotionally examine all evidence, first to determine whether it is relevant and then to determine whether it is acceptable.
How do you feel about that?

I don’t do anything unemotionally; I’m a creature with emotions like everyone else. However I have enough of an ability to think clearly to at least attempt to discover the truth about things without resorting to choosing the conclusions I like first and then very carefully limiting my thinking in order not to disturb my pleasant imaginings.

And I feel that trying to base opinions on evidence is good, since it results in not making stupid, dangerous mistakes so much maybe. Is that a problem?

[Voyager]

@Jesticulator

What does “the scientific consensus” say about your statement? Do scientists use science to determine the *method * of evaluating evidence?

Of course they do. And math, of course. When you collect data, you just don’t accept it - you apply statistical tests to determine how reliable it is, which means what is the probability that your results are due to chance. And of course since I was just stating how science is done, the scientific consensus supports me.

To anticipate your next question, why should we think the scientific consensus is correct? Because this method successfully predicts what we will see in nature, and, creating falsifiable hypotheses, has been very successful where success is not guaranteed.

Why does that mean that “we have a problem”?

Because ignoring or distorting evidence according to dogma does not lead to falsifiable hypotheses, and, worse, does lead us into thinks like GW II.

So? Is there global consensus on politics, philosophy, and the arts? Are you suggesting that there should be?

Are any of these things science? Political science might make some testable predictions, but politics - never.

Falsified? Pretty well? Who did it? What is the global consensus on this issue? Where can I read about it? Or should I just accept your claim as the final truth?

Read your Bible. Has Jesus come back? Was there a flood? Are demons responsible for our ills? Can we see the four corners of the world from any mountain? Since I don’t feel like going through the Bible listing all failed predictions, why don’t you give me some examples of worldwide testable and verified hypotheses of religion on the order of, say, relativity? Religion was in effective charge for about 1500 years. Did it make progress? Did it converge to an answer?

Say Joseph Smith had been a scientist, and had made the same types of claims in the realm of science as he did in the realm of religion. Do you think there would be a Smithian faction of science today? Not likely. Either discovered evidence would support him, and we’d all be Smithians, or it would falsify his hypothesis, and almost none of us would be. (Might be a few crackpots out there.) The issue would be settled because there is a way of settling such things in science, unlike in religion.

[Jesticulator]

@voyager

Of course they do. And math, of course. When you collect data, you just don’t accept it - you apply statistical tests to determine how reliable it is, which means what is the probability that your results are due to chance. And of course since I was just stating how science is done, the scientific consensus supports me.

Well, I see that you don’t understand that the methods of science are not based on science but on a particular epistemology. Consider this: Was Karl Popper a scientist or a philosopher? Also, does science tell scientists which math to use, which data to collect, and what the standards of reliability are?

If you can’t appreciate the difference between science and the philosophy of science then there is no further point to this discussion. (Your irrelevant comments about GW II, “your” Bible, Jesus, and Joseph Smith provide further evidence that a discussion with you in this thread is a waste of time.)

[Jesticulator]

@Sophistry and Illusion

What I’m arguing is two-fold. First, I am arguing that there is no similar indicator in religion–no factor that reliably indicates, in a way that can be replicated by others, that a particular religious doctrine is likely to be true. And the second point I am making is that too many advocates of religion practice special pleading, making ad hoc exemptions for themselves that allow them to believe something is true without being able to present anything that would indicate or tend to show that what they believe is in fact true.

I agree.

Science isn’t a special type of discipline; it is merely a sophisticated extension of our ordinary practice of using evidence and reason to try to come up with hypotheses to explain the world we live in.

But how much of *your * knowledge of the world did you formulate using this “sophisticated extension”? Are all of your “truths” scientific? Is there no place in your world for “non-scientific” knowledge?

Religion isn’t trying to set itself apart from science; it is trying to set itself apart from every other truth-seeking practice exercised by humans. That is an unacceptable case of special pleading.

Perhaps you can provide some evidence that religion is trying to do this. Thanks.

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

@Jesticulator

I agree. But how much of *your * knowledge of the world did you formulate using this “sophisticated extension”? Are all of your “truths” scientific? Is there no place in your world for “non-scientific” knowledge?

Most of my knowledge is non-scientific. But my point is that it is based on evidence, or on the testimony of those who have evidence.

Perhaps you can provide some evidence that religion is trying to do this. Thanks.

Well, anyone who believes that religious truths can be known on the basis of faith alone is doing this. Anyone who believes that personal mystical experience, not verifiable by others, justifies religious belief is doing this. The only people who aren’t doing this are people who actually do the science and try to argue that the best explanatory hypothesis for certain features of the universe is that the universe has an intelligent designer. I think they are wrong (and I think this because I have actually studied the arguments, and qualify as a quasi-expert), but at least they are not setting up a double standard for themselves. Well, except for the obvious double standard whereby they demand that a complex universe demands an intelligent cause, but a complex God doesn’t. But like I said, special pleading is second nature to these people.

[cosmosdan]

@Sophistry and Illusion

That’s the difference between the scientific example I cited, and the religious example you cited. Stated in an oversimplified way, but a way that still conveys a fundamental truth, scientific consensus results from evidence, whereas religious consensus results from indoctrination. You still haven’t given me a religious correlate for scientific evidence. Nor, I suspect, can such a correlate be given.

Nor should one be expected. You’re comparing to very different things and asking for one to be examined by the same standards of the other. It’s an unreasonable and unproductive expectation.

You can reasonably expect objective evidence to be examined when religious beliefs are talking about things that can be examined scientifically but many beliefs are not, and cannot be examined that way. There’s no reason to expect some correlation to scientific evidence for those beliefs.

[Jesticulator]

@Sophistry and Illusion

Most of my knowledge is non-scientific. But my point is that it is based on evidence, or on the testimony of those who have evidence.

But, you have (justified) faith (or trust) only in that testimony that you’ve determined is trustworthy, right? How is this different from religious believers?

Well, anyone who believes that religious truths can be known on the basis of faith alone is doing this.

I’ve never met someone who believed that religious truths can be known on the basis of faith *alone *. Do you have an example?

The only people who aren’t doing this are people who actually do the science and try to argue that the best explanatory hypothesis for certain features of the universe is that the universe has an intelligent designer.

The “only people”? (You enjoy using absolutes, don’t you?) According to your logic, *all * experts in theology who don’t do the science believe that religious truths can be known on the basis of faith alone. Do you have any evidence to back up such a sweeping claim?

But like I said, special pleading is second nature to these people.

And, because you said it (and you repeated it), it must be true.

Thanks for the insight.

[cosmosdan]

@Sophistry and Illusion

What I’m arguing is two-fold. First, I am arguing that there is no similar indicator in religion–no factor that reliably indicates, in a way that can be replicated by others, that a particular religious doctrine is likely to be true. And the second point I am making is that too many advocates of religion practice special pleading, making ad hoc exemptions for themselves that allow them to believe something is true without being able to present anything that would indicate or tend to show that what they believe is in fact true.

I’d agree that often when religion deals with issues that can be examined objectively they ignore the evidence available. It’s important to remember that the key points of religion are subjective and/or unfalsifiable.

Science isn’t a special type of discipline; it is merely a sophisticated extension of our ordinary practice of using evidence and reason to try to come up with hypotheses to explain the world we live in. Religion isn’t trying to set itself apart from science; it is trying to set itself apart from every other truth-seeking practice exercised by humans. That is an unacceptable case of special pleading.

Admittedly religion often places tradition over truth, or assumes their traditions are the truth. Still, I can’t agree with your statement here, especially when it comes to the inner spiritual aspect of religion. What does science tell us about seeking the truth about love for our fellow man, or justice, or other such intangibles.

[ManiacMan]

@Der Trihs

Except that there has never, ever been any evidence for anything but the “There is no God” side. And disbelief is the logical default; that’s how we treat everything else but religion.

What “evidence” do you present for the “there is no God side”???

And what about people who experience things that offer no explanation other than the divine? You would probably say that there is some sort of scientific explanation for whatever miracle a person experienced, but who gives a rat’s ass because you aren’t the one who experienced it…that’s my point. Nothing you can say will convince a person who experienced first-hand something they call “miracle” that it wasn’t a miracle. And since your brain completely rejects religion and God, you might try and say that the person who experienced a miracle is just nuts. That’s why I said earlier that if you were to experience a miracle it would throw you for a loop and quite possible cause you to do a 180. That’s because you have your faith that God does not exist…

You are completely discounting all the people who have experienced something in their lives that can only be described as…Divine. I don’t think it’s ethical of you to discount their faith that God exists because in their minds they simply believe…even more so for people who have experienced a miracle first hand.

I think it’s much easier to think of examples that prove that God exists, and much harder to think of things that prove God does not exist. But maybe that’s just me…since I believe in God.

[JohnnieEnigma]

Your philosophy of life, or belief system/values may have faith as a core. So in that case, it would be realistic. Realistic for you, at least. Not necessarily for those who do not share your values…

Anyway, I kind of like whatthis guy has to say.

[monavis]

Everything we know, believe or were taught about God we learned from some human in a sense we are not believeing in God or what God wants, but what some human has told us.All that is written about God is written by humans. So our beliefs are really a faith in that human.

Some people are helped by their beliefs , and some use their beliefs as an excuse to harm others. As I read this message board I can see that for some a belief is a necessity to help them in life, some do not.

I have been trying to learn the meaning of the word God and I find there are as many meanings to some people as there are people in the world.

Some people are very sensitive about their beliefs and are upset if others do not agree with them. I think this is a sign that their belief is not a strong one and they fear losing the faith. Some try to use their faith to control the minds of others. I cannot see where any one person or religion has the only truth.

Monavis

[kanicbird]

@RT

Ah. Honestly i’d not heard of the concept before; are there any sites or books you could point me at that I could have a look at? It is an interesting topic. And yes, I think i’d agree that does sound worse than Hell, but then i’m a people person

Not much is in scriptures about outer darkness, but it seems like it is reserved for those who are called by God and for whatever reason don’t fully heed the call or don’t do anything with their gifts. It is in Mathew 8:12, 22:13, and 25:30.

Beyond that degrees of Hell which may help in understanding is in some apocphical <sp> books, I beleive the Book of Enoch does go a bit into the afterlife of the condemned. You can also check out Outer darkness - Wikipedia for Wiki’s take on it.

Another source of information is revelation, some people have visited Hell and has seen outer darkness, this is not a good source of information for a non-believer as discernment of the Holy Spirit really needs to be employed in such matters.

If he didn’t want the person in question to accept Satan, he wouldn’t offer it - or at least, he would offer it at another time.

The sin that started it all is that if you eat of this fruit you will become ‘as God’. Basically we become our own god, and that’s where people are at birth, they are their own entity and fully responsible for themselves and the results of their actions, including defending their ‘godhood’ against other forces which wish to dominate them and subdue them (satanic forces). God has to allow us choices to make if we are really to be our own god. We have to be able to set our own path.

Yes there are limits set, possibly to prevent us from quickly self destructing, possibly to limit the interaction of satanic forces and us, as if they were given more access to us they may be able to quickly dominate us and it would be hell on earth literally - though they have quite a bit of influence already. Those limits allow us time to explore and chose our god without being quickly overcome by the enemy.

As for the paths, God has one path and God is one, those who are not Spirit filled can’t know that path is God’s path and may not see it at all, those who are still has to chose to follow that single path. Missing that path at any time is called sin, which basically means to miss the mark - any sin means we are not on that one path, and have missed the standard of God, and are now on our own path, and on our own (Jesus changed this part).

As us being our own god we are subject to the influence of other ‘gods’ with their own agenda, and place ourselves into bondage to these gods - which is giving up our ‘godhood’, through deception Satan may convince some to follow him to lead others to the same place.

[hotflungwok]

@ManiacMan

And what about people who experience things that offer no explanation other than the divine?

They haven’t bothered to look for one. Just because you can’t explain it doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an explanation. You have to have a reason to leap for a divine explanation, not being able to find a natural one is not a good reason.

You would probably say that there is some sort of scientific explanation for whatever miracle a person experienced, but who gives a rat’s ass because you aren’t the one who experienced it…that’s my point. Nothing you can say will convince a person who experienced first-hand something they call “miracle” that it wasn’t a miracle.

How about evidence? Subjective experience is subject to all kinds of distortions from the human mind. People who say things like ‘This is what I think happened and nothing can convince me otherwise’ are rejecting actual evidence for subjective irrationality. And quite frankly, scare me.

And since your brain completely rejects religion and God, you might try and say that the person who experienced a miracle is just nuts. That’s why I said earlier that if you were to experience a miracle it would throw you for a loop and quite possible cause you to do a 180.

How do you know that? I’ve experienced stuff I didn’t understand immediately, and I certainly didn’t reach right for the supernatural non-explanations. One of the distortions I mentioned earlier is expectation bias. A person who views everything through the lens of religion is going to go for the religious explanation first, and generally not bother with reality if they don’t have to. You want to call something a miracle, you better have evidence to back this claim up, not just a lack of ready explanation.

That’s because you have your faith that God does not exist…

Sigh, for the trillionth time, athiests do not have fatih there is no god. Really.

You are completely discounting all the people who have experienced something in their lives that can only be described as…Divine. I don’t think it’s ethical of you to discount their faith that God exists because in their minds they simply believe…even more so for people who have experienced a miracle first hand.

But they don’t just believe in their minds. They try to get others to believe, they indoctrinate their children, they try to get theirs beliefs taught in school, etc. You can have an experience and call it whatever you want. Until you can back your intepretation up with some actual evidence, thats all it is: an interpretation. When everyone has the exact same interpretation for these ‘divine’ events, then maybe we won’t dismiss it out of hand.

I think it’s much easier to think of examples that prove that God exists, and much harder to think of things that prove God does not exist. But maybe that’s just me…since I believe in God.

So, give me an example that proves god exists. And I like it to be an actual example, and not an argument from ignorance, or any of the other 100s of failed examples that have been used in the past.

[nd_n8]

There are people who claim that there is no “soul” because there is no evidence for a “soul” to exist. There is no reason for a “soul” to exist. The argument follows that no evidence and no motive equates to non-existence.

But where is the consciousness in the human body? Where is it located? My thoughts come from my mind so it is possible that consciousness is there. But if the physical aspects of the mind become damaged do I necessarily lose that which makes me “me”? If the mass of the brain were removed and replaced into a new form would my consciousness go along with it? I assume memory would go along as would physical ability but would that new form be “me”? Would I still be “aware”?

Horrendous as this sounds, such a scenario could be tested with current technology. Science could take a dog, teach it several tricks, anchor within it several programmed behaviors and that dog would have a solid and documented set of memories. The same dog could spend time with a set of humans. Each human could interact with the animal and document their perception of the animal’s “personality”, that which makes that dog “that” dog. Once all of this data are collected, remove the dog’s brain and place it into a different dog. The different dog would require quite a bit of medication and therapy but could survive. Would the memories transfer? Would the personality transfer? Would both be lost to the procedure and a completely new entity created?

Many philosophers have argued for and against the concept of a “soul”. As far as I know the argument is still unsettled. These exact same arguments can be applied to the question for the existence of God. There is no evidence for “God” to exist. There is no reason for “God” to exist. It follows then that “God” does not exist.

This is a ”Negative Proof Fallacy”. No matter which side of the argument is taken, this fallacy persists.

For those who have faith, for those who have experienced “miracles” or have been filled with the “Holy Spirit”, those who may not have experienced either of these directly but have either observed or been informed of these phenomenon and approached this information in a non-judgmental and open minded way the “fact” that there is *no evidence for * does not lead to the assumption that this means *all evidence is against *.

As to the OP question of “Is Faith Realistic?” faith seems certainly “real” in that it exists or is perceived to exist. Looking up the Wiki entry on Realism shows that things could be real on a wide variety of levels.

The more pressing question is “Are beliefs negative?”. This could be approached in a number of ways but, to me at least, the underlying theme to this post and the thread in general is “Is Religious Faith Good or Evil”. This depends on a lot of things really. Are the terms “Good” and “Evil” to be described Descriptive (as they relate to individuals or individual behavior) or Normative (as they relate to a standard of society in general)? Even when this is decided, the concept of Good and Evil is still subjective. Who the good guys are and who the bad guys are really depends on which side of the fence you are standing on.

The actions of Andrea Yates might be viewed as Evil by some, but could also be argued as Good by others (even though such an agruement would fly in the face of what a majority of people would understand as common sense). Religion might be viewed by some as providing nothing but failure, but this is also subjective. Did the efforts of Jim Jones and his most dedicated followers succeed or fail? They wanted a Utopia, free from government and social rules and regulations, where they could make their own rules and be totally free. Today they are not subject to any rule or regulation other than their own, simply because they are all dead. They achieved their goal so was it a success? They are all dead so was it a failure? These things are all subjective.

These are the standards and definitions that must be agreed upon by concensus before the debate of whether “Faith” is good or bad can commence. I posit that these standards are, by definition, ubiquitious and will therefore a concensus will not follow.

It is all only good or bad if you think it is good or bad. As simple as that.